Thought it may be helpful to introduce another model relating to R U106 and tangentially its presence in Ireland, a subject which on another thread generated some really interesting and welcome contributions. Without doubt there exists an opinion that considers this Haplogroup to be 'Germanic' moreover by extension of such thinking asserts that R U106 within Ireland is therefore indicative of colonization via England, itself rich in the Haplogroup that some feel may be traced to incursions by Friesians, Jutes or Angles, during the wrongly termed 'Dark Ages'.

So let us for the sake of discussion subscribe to this view, it is after all very appealing and rooted in the observable frequencies of R U106 in 'Germanic' areas such as Austria, Nederlands and in parts of Germany itself. The argument runs that if we examine territories, not thought to be colonized by peoples of 'Germanic' culture, we may note insignificant frequency of the Haplogroup. This eminently reasonable thinking is determined as a persuasive argument for identifying R U106 as 'Germanic'. It is a fairly seamless logic and I can find myself attracted to subscribing to this view, yet there's a hesitation that prevents me from becoming a card carrying member of that school of thought. A consideration that the early migrations of peoples would have been a highly complex dynamic, involving different Haplogroups, that spread across Western Europe to establish a presence. I suppose my natural inclination is to maintain an open mind to the possibility of other scenarios, which may be presently not demonstrable due to lack of data or evidence. So it is that we all drink from the cup of probability, which is why I can understand how and why the view that insists R U106 as being 'Germanic' exerts such appeal, yet despite its logical allure, I prefer to permit myself the space to consider complimentary alternatives. My latest contemplations on this subject has left me perplexed, particularly regarding the earliest migrations and settlement of R U106.

Those who accept this Haplogroup's distribution and frequency across Western Europe as definitive evidence of Germanic expansion, no doubt have no difficulty in agreeing that R U106 may have been in existence for some considerable time before the establishment of such ethnological groups. Do we have a fairly reliable 'guesstimate' for how many centuries its was present in advance of the Goths, Angles, Friesians etc? Upon its original emergence, say 4000 years ago, how many R U106 people would have been established say in the late Neolithic or Bronze Ages? Considerable numbers? Enough to form migratory streams across various parts of Europe? Such musings forced me me to ask, if the Haplogroup, during those periods, was of relatively significant numbers and presumably traveled to settle in various European locations, then would it have been able to establish lineages, measurable today, through an assessment of degree of variance? If not, then are we looking at a case where ancient R U106 for some reason was not able to survive, its possible Neolithic and Bronze Age lines extinguished? Can this be so? It made no sense that a specific Haplogroup would be subject to an extinction, yet others somehow be exempt whereby their ancient lineages presumably thrived. Are the present populations of R U106 derived, not from such early beginnings, but to the often claimed later expansions of Germanic peoples into those regions of Europe currently with high percentages of the Haplogroup?

Could this be true? What happened then to all those earlier R U106, why and how did their lines presumably disappear? Such questioning drew me to wonder if that scenario was credible, could there be an alternative, which accommodated the existence and continuance of the Haplogroup in differing parts of Europe, alongside the later expansions of Germanic peoples, the very growth mirrored in the current frequency distributions? I suppose I was looking for a Middle Way. So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain movement in a river, called laminar flow in which a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers. Is it possible that when we look at R U10-6 in Western Europe the current frequency is the upper surface, established following the rise of Germanic culture and invasion and expansion? Yet within that 'surface' much older lines exist, possibly tracing back to the Bronze Age or Late Neolithic? Could such a stratification apply where the earlier migrations and presence of R U106 has been overlain by the much later 'Germanic' movements and colonization?

There are many here on this wonderful forum who are possessed of a far more knowledgeable understanding and I welcome contributions on the subject, as always I remain open minded and am not possessive of any particular theory, but simply asking questions.

I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.

The problem I have with that idea is that there is no real compelling reason to believe that is actually what happened. It could have happened, yes. Is that what really happened, though? Frankly, I doubt it.

But perhaps someone knows of archaeological evidence indicating an early movement of people from a place likely to have been rich in U106 to someplace else beyond the core Germanic territory occupied by U106 today.

I am not talking about the historical and archaeological evidence for German soldiers in the service of Rome in Britain. That is well known and so close in time to the Migration Period as to be nearly indistinguishable from it.

With regard to U106 and Ireland, the same question applies. Is there any reason to believe that U106 actually came to Ireland in ancient times in any numbers and settled there? We're not talking about "could have". Sure, it "could have" happened. We're talking reasons to believe it actually did happen.

I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.

Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia. U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.

So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain mover in a river, called laminar flow in which Laminar flow, a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers.

Hey, this idea is very interesting. Are there any papers out there that use laminar flow or turbulence to describe the flow and migration of two different types of people? I think that turbulence is the much more frequent mixing result of two different layers, and laminar is much less common in nature. In a former life I used to help molecular dynamics physicists understand various Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz, and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities via supercomputing applications. I wonder if you can really apply this to some presumed historical starting point prior to people intermixing and then seeing if these various types of molecular dynamics interactions result in something that looks similar to modern day haplogroup distribution. You would have to substitute human beings repelling/attracting each other for cultural/genetic reasons for atoms or molecules bumping into each other.

So with that in mind I began to see a model rather like that used to describe a certain mover in a river, called laminar flow in which Laminar flow, a fluid moves in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers.

Hey, this idea is very interesting. Are there any papers out there that use laminar flow or turbulence to describe the flow and migration of two different types of people? I think that turbulence is the much more frequent mixing result of two different layers, and laminar is much less common in nature. In a former life I used to help molecular dynamics physicists understand various Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz, and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities via supercomputing applications. I wonder if you can really apply this to some presumed historical starting point prior to people intermixing and then seeing if these various types of molecular dynamics interactions result in something that looks similar to modern day haplogroup distribution. You would have to substitute human beings repelling/attracting each other for cultural/genetic reasons for atoms or molecules bumping into each other.

Here is an example from one of the molecular dynamics scientists I worked with on how agent-based modeling and simulation can be applied to pandemic influenza in the United States. Maybe substitute introduction of farming or linguistic issues for school closures. Same kind of idea, and quoting from the abstract:

"We model the impact that a variety of levels and combinations of influenza antiviral agents, vaccines, and modified social mobility (including school closure and travel restrictions) have on the timing and magnitude of this spread."

The analogy (none are ever perfect) with laminar flow, as occurring within a river, came to my mind as I imagined peoples cultures and Haplogroups moving in a horizontal expansion, layering over, yet as with the flow in liquid, no distinct boundary, but sliding layers, with presumably zones of mixing at the interface of each fluid. I wondered if that could serve as a model to explain early R U106 migration, distribution and present frequency within Western Europe. The latest and most easily identifiable layer formed by 'Germanic' expansions, that contributed to the current frequency distributions, what I'm curious to consider is does that most 'recent' flow mask more ancient lines of R U106, which may have spread at an earlier time,? Or has possible Late Neolithic or Bronze Age R U106 been extinguished?

The latest and most easily identifiable layer formed by 'Germanic' expansions, that contributed to the current frequency distributions, what I'm curious to consider is does that most 'recent' flow mask more ancient lines of R U106, which may have spread at an earlier time,?

I believe this is the key question, and I don't think we have an answer yet. I am hoping a further resolution of U106 subclade distribution will help to provide an answer.

I suppose what you are proposing is possible. U106 could have spread out beyond its current zones of highest frequency very soon after its birth, into places now not normally considered as Germanic. Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.

Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia. U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but it seems to me in both England and Ireland the settlement areas were pretty similar. Dublin was founded by the Vikings, as were Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick.

In England, of course, Danish Vikings settled in the east, in what became the Danelaw, but that area was (and remained) Anglo-Saxon, as well. There was some settlement in Lancashire in northwestern England by Norwegian Vikings, but I don't think it was as extensive as the Danish settlement in eastern England.

It would be difficult to distinguish Viking input from Anglo-Saxon input since, to a certain extent, they were pretty much the same peoples, just separated in time.

English U106 variance could be higher than Scandinavian variance for the simple reason that England received U106 from more than one source, whereas Scandinavian U106 is, well, Scandinavian U106. There could be other reasons why Scandinavia has lower U106 variance, as well. Of course, one of those could be that U106 in England is actually older than U106 in Scandinavia, but that doesn't have to be the reason.

I know that the British Isles are, comparatively speaking, over-represented in commercial dna testing and Scandinavia is comparatively under-represented.

Does it seem likely to you that there was no U106 in Scandinavia until after the Viking Era?

It's pretty easy to see that thus far no one can provide any real reason to think that U106 arrived in Ireland in ancient times. That is really the question. Whether such a thing was possible isn't really all that important, since I think most of us acknowledge that it was possible. Again, it is also possible that U106 got to China in ancient times.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.

I think your response applies more saliently to the other thread, where that discussion relates specifically to the question of R U106 and Ireland. My comments here are really serving different questions, more general and considering a theoretical model which speculates as to early R U106, its possible continuance, to what degree it is masked by later Germanic expansions, did Late Neolithic and Bronze Age R U106 extend across Western Europe, or were such lines extinguished?

I think your response applies more saliently to the other thread, where that discussion relates specifically to the question of R U106 and Ireland. My comments here are really serving different questions, more general and considering a theoretical model which speculates as to early R U106, its possible continuance, to what degree it is masked by later Germanic expansions, did Late Neolithic and Bronze Age R U106 extend across Western Europe, or were such lines extinguished?

The very title of this thread assumes there was such an early expansion to be masked by later movements.

There is equally no reason for it not be 'true' that is why the post is clearly within a speculative context, with a number of questions on the subject. Have noted your initial reaction and respect again your choice to maintain your view, however I feel our exchanges could run the risk of monopolizing the thread, an action as Moderator I'm sure you may agree would be counterproductive. Hope you may share my enthusiasm to note the views and contributions of fellow subscribers to the Forum, whose knowledge, expertise and understanding of this subject greatly exceeds my own, and so offers valued insight.

It's pretty easy to see that thus far no one can provide any real reason to think that U106 arrived in Ireland in ancient times. That is really the question. Whether such a thing was possible isn't really all that important, since I think most of us acknowledge that it was possible. Again, it is also possible that U106 got to China in ancient times.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.

Agreed. I think the reason why SE or East England might be a possibility is the proximity of that area to Frisia and the fact we know sea travel was very capable in ancient time periods.

It's pretty easy to see that thus far no one can provide any real reason to think that U106 arrived in Ireland in ancient times. That is really the question. Whether such a thing was possible isn't really all that important, since I think most of us acknowledge that it was possible. Again, it is also possible that U106 got to China in ancient times.

The argument that some U106 might have gotten to SE England in ancient times seems to me to have a lot more traction, although even there I don't think the impact could have been that great.

Agreed. I think the reason why SE or East England might be a possibility is the proximity of that area to Frisia and the fact we know sea travel was very capable in ancient time periods.

I agree. That is why I think a decent argument might be made for a little U106 leaking over into SE Britain in early times.

I don't think it happened, personally, because I think U106 was probably not in the Low Countries or even East Friesland at the time, but that is certainly debatable.

.... Then, much later, such settlement could have been overlain by the subsequent probably U106-rich Germanic expansions of the Migration Period and the Viking Era.

Is U106 found in higher frequencies where Vikings, but not Anglo-Saxons, made incursions?

I ask this because the general assumption is that U106 came in the Viking migrations but U106 is of higher frequency in Denmark and the eastern side of Scandinavia. U106 STR variance is not higher in Scandinavia than in England so it is possible that U106 was not among early Viking raids.

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but it seems to me in both England and Ireland the settlement areas were pretty similar. Dublin was founded by the Vikings, as were Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick.

In England, of course, Danish Vikings settled in the east, in what became the Danelaw, but that area was (and remained) Anglo-Saxon, as well. There was some settlement in Lancashire in northwestern England by Norwegian Vikings, but I don't think it was as extensive as the Danish settlement in eastern England.

It would be difficult to distinguish Viking input from Anglo-Saxon input since, to a certain extent, they were pretty much the same peoples, just separated in time.

To be clear, I am not making a firm proclamation or strong opinion, I'm just proposing an alternative "trial" hypothesis to challenge conventional think that Anglo-Saxons and Vikings are pretty much the same genetically. They may be, but the possible youthfulness of U106 in Scandinavia may representative the "southern" contingent of the Germanic expansions.

English U106 variance could be higher than Scandinavian variance for the simple reason that England received U106 from more than one source, whereas Scandinavian U106 is, well, Scandinavian U106. There could be other reasons why Scandinavia has lower U106 variance, as well. Of course, one of those could be that U106 in England is actually older than U106 in Scandinavia, but that doesn't have to be the reason...

Agreed, I just want to consider that the variance may be telling us something, that and the fact that U106 is weaker as you go north and west in Scandinavia.

Does it seem likely to you that there was no U106 in Scandinavia until after the Viking Era?

I would give similar answers to the same question about England. The proximity is such that it seems hard to believe some U106 couldn't have made it to Sweden and Norway prior to the Vikings. I would differentiate southern Denmark (the lower Jutland) from Sweden and particularly Norway.

The "trial" hypothesis is that expansion of the Jastorf culture from the neck of the Jutland and below expanded contained U106, but U106 was not significantly present in the north of the Jutland and across the straits yet, nor in England.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Its (Jastorf) area was first restricted to northern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.

Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons movements pushed U106 into the Low Countries, through the old Nordwestblock and over to England, but also northward across the straits and into Sweden and Norway to some degree.

In this case, I would expect the Viking migrations to be light, not devoid, of U106.

Do we see Scandinavian input, i.e. R1a1, in Lancashire, in Wexford and Waterford? or the Northern Scottish isles? If the ratio of U106 to R1a1 in those areas is less than the ratio of U106 to R1a1 in the south of Sweden or in northern Denmark, then there is some indication that U106 was late to Scandinavia... and really is the "southern contingent" of the Germanic expansion.

We do have examples of things like Z196's L165 that cluster people in the northern Scottish Isles and Scandinavia together. They also have a Viking/surname/clan tradition. Do we have the same kind of clustering of U106 people between the non-English parts of the Isles and Scandinavia?

There is equally no reason for it not be 'true' that is why the post is clearly within a speculative context, with a number of questions on the subject.

No, I disagree. Your speculation on this issue, while possibly true, is not equal to the view that U106 primarily expanded with the Germanic peoples during the Migration Period and Viking Era and then again when the English and the Dutch were advancing their imperial ambitions. The latter has the benefit of loads of evidence to support it. Your speculation about an early layer of U106 covered over by the Germanic layer is really the product of wishful thinking and of personal dissatisfaction with a U106 haplogroup assignment. It can't really be the product of anything else, because there is no real evidence driving it.

These threads about U106 really being something other than mostly Germanic, or U106 being unclassifiable, are almost never (actually never, from what I have seen) inspired by someone noticing what looks like the early movement of an actual ancient or prehistoric group in which U106 was likely to feature prominently.

Instead, they generally appear because someone doesn't like being U106 (U106 isn't associated with the "right" ethnic group, so he must find a rare variety of U106 that is "right") or because someone has an anti-U106 animus for whatever reason, maybe because some U106 guys on dna-forums or somewhere else have been too in-your-face with the "conquering Anglo-Saxons (or Vikings)" stuff.

But those aren't real reasons to believe that there was an early movement of U106 that is now overlain by the later Germanic movement.

Have noted your initial reaction and respect again your choice to maintain your view, however I feel our exchanges could run the risk of monopolizing the thread, an action as Moderator I'm sure you may agree would be counterproductive. Hope you may share my enthusiasm to note the views and contributions of fellow subscribers to the Forum, whose knowledge, expertise and understanding of this subject greatly exceeds my own, and so offers valued insight.

The only way we could monopolize this thread is if no one else posts here. They are free to post, but so am I.

I will post here as long as I feel so inclined, but I will admit that I am getting tired of this topic, especially given the real reason it keeps popping up.

There is no 'real reason', nor agenda operating, apart from those possessed of such a perception, as mentioned previously my post on this thread raises questions that are as equally valid as any other, that they speculate to possible different considerations regarding R U106 of course invites response, however, I'm sure you can concur that, others may see the reiteration of R U106 as 'Germanic', to the exclusion of any alternative or reasonable possibility as monopolizing the thread. Personally I rather enjoy reading your posts, however beyond restating the orthodox opinion, like all contributions on the issue, they are bound to remain a chosen opinion, informed yes, but still not a proven fact. Hence we are in the realm of discussion and interpretation, my point is that clearly you have a fixed view, while I have no attachment to asserting any particular ethnology to R U106. I am just questioning. what to all intents seems to be a dogma, and presenting a different position, which has more to do with keeping an open mind, than declaring as fact (minus actual demonstrable evidence) that SNPs can be conclusively proven to belong to any Haplogroup.

Let's see now. The best effort to understand this haplogroup based on logical deduction from the evidence is "dogma" and "orthodoxy". An open mind is the ability to see wishful thinking as equally valid and deserving of respect. Sounds like Post-Modernism to me.

"The best effort to understand this haplogroup based on logical deduction from the evidence is "dogma" and "orthodoxy". (emphasis added)

What evidence? There exists only informed speculation and that based on an assumption that current Haplogroup frequencies represent a point of emergence and that SNPs can be definitively attached to a particular Ethnology. Hardly empirical proof now is it?

As to open-mindedness, it is surely not defined by misrepresentation, nor a fanciful determination to reject any other likely-hood, in preference to a mindset based upon the spurious foundations mentioned above.

The evidence - and it is evidence - has been recited for you over and over and over. It isn't just "speculation" based on modern haplogroup distribution. It is haplogroup distribution and frequency, ethnolinguistic affiliation, recorded history, archaeology, etc.

Those are the reasons it is the "orthodox" thinking on the subject of U106, i.e., because most reasonable people, without a personal agenda or anti-U106 animus, look at the facts and conclude pretty much the same things, admirably expressed by Dienekes as follows (and worth repeating):

Quote from: Dienekes

The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.

What you are doing, whoknows, is speculating based on no evidence whatsoever (none that you have bothered to articulate, anyway).

Logical deduction from the evidence = logical deduction from the evidence. It doesn't make a shred of difference to that whether the evidence is a scrap of watermarked paper on the corpse or a woman standing by saying "I'm his mother and here's his passport". Logic should be applied to whatever evidence exists. Any evidence is better than no evidence. Now if new evidence comes to light, then logic should be applied to that as well. That's the process of deduction that pushes back the boundaries of knowledge, step by step. The willingness to reconsider old evidence in the light of new evidence or a new paradigm is what I would define as open-mindedness, and it is the mark of a great scholar.

Post-Modernism on the other hand is an intellectual cul-de-sac, full of pompous, self-indulgent mediocrity. Prating about the weakness of the existing evidence as an excuse to put forward a preferred theory on the basis of no evidence at all is typical of the anti-rational slurry that has all but suffocated the social sciences.

With respect the 'evidence' under question relates to the specific context of R U106, its initial emergence, early movements, settlement and whether it established itself prior to later 'Germanic' expansions, to survive, now possibly obscured by those later expansions. Within that reference, along with the proposal that it may have migrated as part of an admixture, we are indeed speculating and do not possess empirical evidence one way or another, while ethnolinguistic affiliation, recorded history, archaeology, etc. can offer informed insight, they do not constitute verifiable evidence in themselves as relating to proving that R U106 did, or did not, expand across Western Europe during the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age.

Equally absent are 'facts' in the sense of being conclusively determined as such by scientific testing and peer review, again we are all limited to informed speculation, even Dienekes. I remind you that my comments here are not made to support or defend any particular agenda but to simply question an orthodoxy built upon an assumption, albeit an articulate and informed one

Fighting the evidence is folly. It is always folly. There is no point at which it ceases to be folly. If new evidence changes the picture, then the wise will take that into account and develop a new theory. So theory changes, not the wisdom. The wise have always taken into account the evidence available to them at the time.

Fighting evidence is a waste of energy and time. It achieves nothing at all.

Neither do I propose to waste my time responding constantly to restatements in slightly different words of the Post-Modernist credo that any theory is as good as another, or brandishing of the flag of faux rebellion. The Law of Gravity is orthodoxy. Attacking it for no rational reason whatever is not a badge of intellectual courage. It is a badge of idiocy. In the Post-Modernist world-view, show has taken the place of substance. The value placed on truly independent thinking in the world of rational scholarship has been distorted into the self-indulgent idea that attacking the rational position on anything is a mark of superior thinking. How convenient! So if I want to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, I can congratulate myself on my absolute brilliance. I'm attacking the orthodox position!